San Bernardino County Colonies corruption case at crossroads

The future of a San Bernardino County corruption case involving a $102 million legal settlement between the county and a Rancho Cucamonga developer, allegedly tainted by bribery and extortion, lies with a decision by the California Supreme Court.

The state’s highest court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments from prosecutors and defense attorneys in Sacramento — the latest chapter in a legal battle that has spanned years and millions of dollars in San Bernardino County.

Each side will be given 30 minutes to present its arguments to the seven Supreme Court justices, who will issue a written decision within 90 days, court spokesman Cathal Conneely ﻿said.

Specifically, the justices will determine if a defendant accused of giving a bribe can be charged with aiding and abetting the receipt of the same bribes he is accused of giving.

But at stake is more than that in a battle that has had many chapters.

The court is the final stop on the appellate trail that will determine if prosecutors can move forward with a criminal case more in line with the sweeping corruption case they originally charged, or proceed with a case significantly weakened by the dismissal of bribery-related charges against their key defendant.

“This is the right case for this court to offer guidance on these important issues, and it comes at the right time,” according to the prosecutors’ petition. “This high-profile public corruption case is being closely watched, and will be used as a benchmark to inform the conduct of both public officials and those seeking to influence them as to what acts they can commit without subjecting themselves to prosecution.”

The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office is trying to get four bribery charges reinstated against Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeffrey Burum — a key defendant in their criminal case — which were tossed out by a San Bernardino Superior Court judge on a motion by Burum’s attorney, Stephen Larson.

Advertisement

Burum is the developer of the Colonies Crossroads, a commercial development that can be seen off the 210 Freeway in Upland, and a neighboring housing development, Colonies at San Antonio.

Larson argued in his answer brief to the Supreme Court that prosecutors’ arguments fall flat.

“The people ask this court to overturn over a century of precedent precluding their improper attempt to charge Mr. Burum, the alleged bribe-giver, under derivative theories of liability for the crime of receiving bribes,” Larson wrote in his brief.

Burum stands accused of giving a total of $400,000 in bribes to three former county officials for their help in allegedly orchestrating the landmark $102 million legal settlement between the county and Burum’s investor group, Colonies Partners LP, in November 2006. At the time, the settlement ended nearly five years of legal battle over who was responsible for building a flood-control basin on land in Upland owned by Colonies Partners.

But a criminal grand jury handed down an indictment in May 2011, setting a path that would ultimately lead to Tuesday’s hearing.

Also charged in the case were former county Supervisor Paul Biane, former Assistant Assessor and union president Jim Erwin, and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff for Supervisor Gary Ovitt.

The alleged bribes, prosecutors allege, were funneled into the accounts of political action committees secretly controlled by the three county supervisors who approved the settlement — Bill Postmus, Biane and Ovitt — or members of their staffs. Kirk is alleged to have received his $100,000 bribe for persuading Ovitt to vote in favor of the settlement.

All have denied wrongdoing.

Postmus struck a plea bargain with prosecutors, admitting in exchange for leniency that he took a bribe from Burum to vote to approve the settlement. Postmus has agreed to testify against the four defendants at trial.

The DA’s Office declined to comment on Friday, citing the pending litigation.

And Larson declined to comment for this report. He said he was reserving his comments for the state Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The case’s path to the state Supreme Court got momentum when in August 2011, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Brian McCarville, ruling on a motion filed by the defense, dismissed five of the seven felony charges against Burum, including all bribery charges, and one felony count of misappropriation of public funds for each of the other defendants.

McCarville ruled that people accused of giving bribes cannot also be charged with aiding and abetting the receipt of bribes, of which Burum was accused. Prosecutors argued in their appeal that the law contains no such exemption and that the facts of the case should determine whether or not Burum could also be charged with aiding and abetting the receipt of bribes.

In their Dec. 10, 2012, petition to the state Supreme Court, prosecutors said California bribery laws have failed to develop alongside evolving national legal standards and conflict with other court decisions.

On appeal by prosecutors, the state 4th District Court of Appeals in Riverside upheld McCarville’s decision in October 2012 on the bribery counts, but reinstated a charge of misappropriation of public funds against Burum that was also tossed out by McCarville, and dismissed a conflict-of-interest charge against Burum that McCarville had let stand.

Prosecutors subsequently petitioned the state Supreme Court to hear the case.